Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/1/2011 8:21:38 AM EST
How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.


Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:22:30 AM EST
Jumped the shark
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:28:02 AM EST
santorum is running for president? huh, hadnt noticed.

he has even less chance of getting the nomination than ronpaul
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:29:23 AM EST
Santorum is a nut case, and always has been.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:30:06 AM EST
Rick Santorum is crazier than Ron Paul.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:36:17 AM EST
Santorum is spot on.

al-Awlaki did renounce his citizenship by moving to a foreign country, taking up arms against the US by joining al Queda and advocating repeated attacks against the US, which include Maj. Hassan shouting "allahu ackbar" as he gunned down victims at Ft Hood.

Fuck mentally ill RP.


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:43:56 AM EST
"Is anyone really surprised at this point? Ron Paul put up a commentary claiming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were our own fault – and now, he's condemning America for helping rid the world of a murderer,"

I can't find any fault with this.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:48:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2011 8:48:52 AM EST by ArmyInfantryVet]
I agree that scumbags who join forces that we are at war with and plans or helps coordinate attacks against his home country, he should have his citizenship revoked.

Not like the gesture really matters though, I'd rather the guy be flattened by a 500 lb bomb.

Fuck Ron Paul.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:54:16 AM EST
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:56:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:57:31 AM EST
I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat does.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:59:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?




Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:59:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By althor:
I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat Ron Paul does.

FIFY
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:00:13 AM EST
Sounds like a great idea, until they turn it on you. Like every other .gov regulation and law.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:00:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead08:

Originally Posted By althor:
I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat Ron Paul does.

FIFY


Whats the matter? Your boy Perry not polling so well anymore?
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:00:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?




Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.

Aye, but you think terrorists deserve due process and that bombing an asshole in Yemen who carried out war against his own country should be spared of being considered a military target.


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:01:43 AM EST
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.


Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.


Suddenly militias are going to be a target...
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:05:05 AM EST
"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action,"

Hey Rick, I'm pretty sure America has enough laws to deal with traitorous and terrorist behavior by its citizens. Awlaki is a stain on a pile of rocks. The system works just fine. So Rick, we don't need your vague definition of "action" codified into more restrictive laws, you fucking xenophobic twat.

Obvious failed campaign bid and desperate attempt to appear relevant is obvious. Now go away Rick.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:12:15 AM EST
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:14:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2011 9:25:46 AM EST by mp137]
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.


Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.


Suddenly militias are going to be a target...


They won't just call you crazy. They'll call you a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, liberal, hippy, tinfoil hatter, ronulan, coward...whatever gets you to STFU.

ETA: cult member
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:16:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:18:13 AM EST
To a large extent Santorum is right about Paul. In my mind Paul is nothing less than a terrorist sympathizing appeaser living in a fantasy world and his cult members are doing mental gymnastics to validate is insanity.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:18:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead08:
"Is anyone really surprised at this point? Ron Paul put up a commentary claiming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were our own fault – and now, he's condemning America for helping rid the world of a murderer,"

I can't find any fault with this.


What did he say Jim?

I don't know, Dat old man uses lots o words, but Rudy gullianni just told me dat old sumbitch hates ahmericuh!
Let's git him!
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:22:22 AM EST
I think its pretty safe to say that participating in an organization that is at war with the United States is effectively renouncing your citizenship. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:24:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?




Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.

Aye, but you think terrorists deserve due process and that bombing an asshole in Yemen who carried out war against his own country should be spared of being considered a military target.




Come on............................................. he wasn't targeted. He just happened to be with other dudes who were targeted!
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:25:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:28:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:34:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By mp137:
How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.


Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:35:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:40:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Joe_Pennsy:

Originally Posted By mp137:
How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.


Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!



So you think this post is about him insulting Ron Paul, and not about his quote that I posted?

I see what I'm dealing with now.

I didn't think I would have to say this, but here I go:

This thread is about Rick Santorum wanting Obama and congress to be able to strip someone of their citizenship with no trial.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:42:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:46:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.


Right, because the government never prosecutes innocent people.

And it's never comprised of personalities jealous of their own power.

And those powers are never used to silence political opponents or critics.

Don't be naieve.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:47:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.


what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:49:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By mp137:
Originally Posted By Joe_Pennsy:

Originally Posted By mp137:
How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.


Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!



So you think this post is about him insulting Ron Paul, and not about his quote that I posted?

I see what I'm dealing with now.

I didn't think I would have to say this, but here I go:

This thread is about Rick Santorum wanting Obama and congress to be able to strip someone of their citizenship with no trial.

Yeah. I checked your post history. It's a Ron Paul thread.


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 9:53:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:04:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument


I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure if barny frank had said this, instead of a "conservative", you would be spitting nails.

Objection to letting the government strip our citizenship without trial is a "weak ass argument"?
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:10:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2011 10:11:06 AM EST by itstock]
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Santorum is spot on.

al-Awlaki did renounce his citizenship by moving to a foreign country, taking up arms against the US by joining al Queda and advocating repeated attacks against the US, which include Maj. Hassan shouting "allahu ackbar" as he gunned down victims at Ft Hood.




Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:14:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By mp137:
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.


Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.


Suddenly militias are going to be a target...


They won't just call you crazy. They'll call you a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, liberal, hippy, tinfoil hatter, ronulan, coward...whatever gets you to STFU.

ETA: cult member


Yep.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:35:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument


yeah cuz .gov would never abuse power or over step it's authority. have you heard of fast and furious, and I'm not talking about the lame ass movies?
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:35:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.


Right, because the government never prosecutes innocent people.

And it's never comprised of personalities jealous of their own power.

And those powers are never used to silence political opponents or critics.

Don't be naieve.


Where do you get these crazy notions? I'm sure that our present leadership would never consider law-abiding americans terrorist threats, especially tea party participants or veterans returning from overseas. I'm sure that any powers given to them will be used responsibly and objectively.

/sarcasm





Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:38:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


Just about everything the government has done with our best interests in mind, has went fucking sideways on us. Give some examples that havent over time.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:41:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Fourays2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Kurg:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!



Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.


You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.


what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization


Some people will obviously volunteer for the gas chambers, I mean its for the good of America afterall.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 10:50:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By itstock:
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Santorum is spot on.

al-Awlaki did renounce his citizenship by moving to a foreign country, taking up arms against the US by joining al Queda and advocating repeated attacks against the US, which include Maj. Hassan shouting "allahu ackbar" as he gunned down victims at Ft Hood.






How is Santorum spot on? He is advocating the codifying of needless and vague laws which is a dubious and demagogic proposition at best. Awlaki's citizenship is an enormously moot point as it had no bearing on his treatment in the theater of war. Revoking Awlaki's citizenship is a complete non-issue. Both Paul and Santorum need to STFU and go away.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:17:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2011 2:17:30 PM EST by bytor94]

Originally Posted By mp137:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument


I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure if barny frank had said this, instead of a "conservative", you would be spitting nails.

Objection to letting the government strip our citizenship without trial is a "weak ass argument"?

Well, since Paul and Barney are such good pals, we don't have to worry about it.

They think alike, they vote alike, they love Pelosi alike, and they spend tax dollars alike.




Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:20:43 PM EST
Revoking citizenship requires due process.

Killing an opponent on the battlefield does not. This is what we did to al-wikipedia or however you say his name.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:26:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By wingnutx:
Revoking citizenship requires due process.

Killing an opponent on the battlefield does not. This is what we did to al-wikipedia or however you say his name.

But the facts don't help Uncle Ron in generating support with Code Pink and Move On . Org.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:35:38 PM EST
Yeah that is a great idea... unless one stops to consider all the defintions of an "action" that should result be considered a renunciation of citizenship that could dreamed up by those in positions of authority.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:42:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:49:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead08:

Originally Posted By wingnutx:
Revoking citizenship requires due process.

Killing an opponent on the battlefield does not. This is what we did to al-wikipedia or however you say his name.

But the facts don't help Uncle Ron in generating support with Code Pink and Move On . Org.

I don't think he could possibly get support from the latter. They are diametrically opposed on too many issues.

Code Pink is pretty much a one issue org, so they probably would endorse him.


Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:51:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 3:01:24 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top